DENY; and Opinion Filed May 20, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00578-CV
IN RE RODNEY JAMES ROHRICH, M.D., Relator
Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-15886
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Schenck
In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to
vacate a May 2, 2019 show cause order and a March 4, 2019 order compelling production of data
referenced in an April 2018 article written by relator. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator
must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate
appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown an abuse of
discretion. Further, relator has not presented his arguments to the trial court regarding compliance
with the order compelling production or regarding objections to the production. He is, therefore,
not entitled to mandamus relief. In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig.
proceeding) (“Due to the extraordinary nature of the remedy, the right to mandamus relief
generally requires a predicate request for action by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous
refusal to act”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the
relief sought).
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
190578F.P05
–2–